Sorry, I don't follow the subject that closely. As far as I know it's still only Jay Leno who can afford a decent fuel cell car but the economics is (reportedly) much better for BMW / Mercedes(?) Buses & trucks. People who buy private electric cars now are not generally motivated by the cash price. For example Jay Leno also has a 1907 electric car.;)
The sensations of hearing, sight, touch, and to some extent smell are all different ways for the brain to model 3D space. Different ways for the universe to observe itself.
H2 is made in commercial quantities from "cracking" fossil fuels. Splitting water with electricity is more expensive but if your source of energy is clean then there's no GHG problem with the technology on a large scale. Reducing GHG emissions is the main reason for all the interest in electric cars.
As someone rightly pointed out above, the current problem with hydrogen is not technical, not safety, not environmental, it's economic, it's our own human system that is shooting us in the foot. Personally I think that can be fixed by capitalism provided the market (rules of trade) punish polluters rather than reward them as they do now. - The "tragedy of the commons" in a nut-shell, if we can create a set of rules (a market) that efficiently rewards corporations for screwing up our little blue spaceship's life support systems, surely we could find a set of rules that reverses that trend. If not then (collectively) we are no smarter than a jar of fermenting yeast.
BMW has a H2 tank that's certified by the EU regulators up to 20,000psi, they have had that for well over a decade now. Yes hydrogen does some weird shit, not only do steel containers become brittle, it will simply pass straight through normal steel at those pressures. BMW, Honda, et-al have a proven technology to handle those problems. Nothing is 100% safe but fuel cell technology is close enough that it has frightened Musk into making a fool of himself spouting this nonsense.
I do find it interesting how every one has ran with the Hindenburg angle, you've gotta hand it to Musk, he knows how to pervert a conversation with spurious propaganda. WTF has the Hindenburg got to do with fuel cells? - This is Musk doing a Tomas Edison, except it's uncool to electrocute elephants as "evidence" that a competing technology is dangerous these days, so he picks an unrelated human tragedy instead as "evidence".
The fact is Honda has a fuel cell car that is in many ways more practical than the cars he makes, and from a "save the planet" pov fuel cells are cleaner and simpler to scale up than batteries. Worse still for Musk Honda's car (and a cameo by it's owner, Jay Leno) was featured on the same Top Gun episode as the Tesla sports, he famously attempted to sue TG for an "unfair" review and was (rightfully) laughed out of court. Musk who is definitely smart and rich has decided the best way to compete with Honda has nothing to do with innovation, the best way to compete is to try and scare people by pulling horror stories from his arse..
I like Musk's cars, but they are not "revolutionary" they are simply the state of the art in battery powered cars, which have been around for a century now. I won't be buying any of his stuff, even if I could afford it. The man is a greedy liar who thinks the only way to "win" is to drown the competition's reputation in bullshit and silence critics with a team of lawyers, behaviour I really do not want to encourage with my wallet.
WP is a credit to Wales and the thousands of intellectually honest contributors, it much broader, more up to date, and just as accurate as a traditional encyclopaedia. Climate change is a prime target for unscrupulous lobbyists, yet they have managed to keep climate related articles reasonably clean from that sort of thing over the past decade.
Yes, but to plat devil's advocate, if you have been accused of murder do you think the authorities might move to prevent you accessing your guns after the arrest? The GP is correct capability is unrelated to intent, however you can't do anything with intent alone, you need both to make something happen. Intent makes a huge difference, I call myself a hacker at times, I think most people who know their way around a script do, not because we break into systems but because when corporate spot fires break out I often "hack a script" to put it out.
Matter of fact when I first got into programing in the early 80's a "hacker" just meant someone who can dive into code (or a system) and make it do something it was not designed to do. It was normally a compliment, but also derogatory when applied to software design. I probably use the word a couple of times a week in normal office conversation. eg: "XYZ sounds feasible, but you realise it won't be easy since that code has already been hacked to death, maybe we should bin it and start over".
I have a problem with the assumptions needed for any "proof" one ay or the other.
Free will is the wrong question and correct answers often come via "insight" not analytical thought, eg: the answer to a word puzzle will often just pop into your head while looking at the words, that's insight. Finding the answer by analysis (hmm, let's see, plurals end in "s"....) normally takes much longer than the insights provided by your right hemisphere, the other man deffernce between the two ways of thinking is that insight leaves with no way of explaining where the answer came from it just "popped into your head". Also to the best of our knowledge the fabric of the universe is random right down to a fraction of the diameter of a neutron, so determinism doesn't neatly match observation either, thus Eienstien's infamous "god does not play dice with the universe" quip. Turns out "god" does indeed have a gambling addiction, but if we're to believe those stories we need to remember "god" also own the house and the house always wins in the long run.
I think the closest we can come to saying anything constructive is that mind emerges from matter in a similar way that tornados emerge from storms, it a temporarily stable pattern of behaviour that eventually runs out of energy or is disrupted in some other way. If there's a ghost occupying organic machines that makes them able to respond to human behaviour then Siri is a very simple example of a "ghost" that occupies a silicon machine. Watson is far more convincing and complex example. And who's to say Hurricane Sandy HAD to take a left turn. maybe she wanted to? Beneath both man and machine smiles it's all just billions and billons of logic gates with mathematically perfect randomness thrown in for good measure. There's also the seeming paradox that "mathematically perfect randomness" has a statistically very predictable behaviour.
In conclusion, I do not believe in free will in the strict philosophical/religious sense of the word, it sounds too much like the religious concept of a "soul" for my liking. Having come to that perfectly rational conclusion after many years. I nevertheless do appear to have free will in spades in everyday life and try as I might I cannot divorce myself from it's consequences.;)
Jesus your full of shit today. I for one don't want to watch beheading videos, by the same token I don't want to stop people with (what I consider) extraordinarily bad taste from watching these things. And a lot more people are like me these days, "religious violence" is what we are talking about, we're more into personal responsibility these days, we don't give a flying fuck which imaginary friend ordered the fucking psychopaths to do it.
If that really is your definition of "true manliness", then do it yourself little boy, Don't sit on your fat arse and point to what others have or have not done, live your principles, or be seen to be talking out of ones own arsehole. PS: Sorry if I just "punished" your opposing view, I would have preferred to punished it with a "-1 Blow hard", but sadly that's not an option.
Laws can't work without the support of the general population (re: drug war). The question is, why is it illegal to wander across the face of the planet if it takes my fancy and make an honest attempt to pay taxes and abide by the local laws? Think about it, did the Mongols ask Marco Polo for his passport or did they proudly show him a nifty navigation device called a "compass" to help him on his journey?
If you intend to engage in adult conversation, kindly cease your condescension.
Sorry about that, most of the links you have ever provided me with are full of tabloid ad-homs about "greedy scientists selling their soul", so I figured snaky catches your attention.;)
Nothing below the above sarcastic apology is intended to be insulting / snarky / sarcastic / offensive / condescending. I have used "scare quotes" in places where I lack a more descriptive phrase.
I know you pride yourself on being a skeptic and we've talked about self-skepticism before, so in all seriousness here's the challenge.
Take a random climate depot article about the AR5, take a random climate science article about the AR5. Pick out a few random contradictions between the two articles that can be resolved by checking the AR5. Let me know how you go, no need to respond here if you don't have the time right now, I will remember for next time we cross paths. In the spirit of non-snarkyness. I'm willing to spend an hour or so to do a similar self-assessment on my own claims if you can offer one that you think may help me see "the error of my ways".
Personally I think that if your not concerned about climate change and the current political response then you are simply not paying attention. So use the PRIMARY source Jane, it's more ardours than the myriad he-said-she-said sources but it will free your mind as it did mine in the mid 90's. When/if that happens you will understand why I (unintentionally) haunt your posts. There is no shame in ignorance or falling for corporate propaganda, however refusing to use basic research techniques such referring to primary sources to resolve apparent contradictions, is just another way of saying "wilfully ignorant".
Seriously, I was you in my early 20's, albeit with a different subject, when you try the exercise above your going to get pretty pissed at the people who have "brainwashed" you into doing their bidding. If you want a "mastermind propagandist" to focus you anger then Inhofe is the common thread that runs through the vast majority of links you have thrown at me. When you see one of their victims in the future you will want to shake them like I shake you every now and then (often without realising it's you before I hit submit). So here's a couple of obvious questions you might ask about me...
Why do I care if you or anyone else is "brainwashed" by corporate propaganda?
Why did I spend 30 minutes typing up this reply??
Simple succinct answer from "the greatest polymath of all time" - "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire.
I'm not immune to that law of human behaviour and neither are you, I have no other motive to convince you AGW is a problem other than my 3 grandkids will have to live with our collective decisions. I may "take the piss" every now and then but if you can manage to take a step back from the verbal duelling thing we have going, you might be able to see that I am a
People complained that if you wanted music, you had to purchase a physical CD, for an ensemble collection and for an exorbitant fee. Usually you had to purchase an entire CD for a single song you liked. As soon as an option was given, people flocked to the new systems in droves, uptake was very fast.
Seems to me the "option" was withdrawn when we moved from records to CD's but then it was returned, ie: a business plan glitch in the transition from records to downloaded mp3's.. My own kids that grew up in 80's/90's paid little or no attention to top 40 lists, what was the point when you couldn't buy the single to play at home?
I think that financially speaking they shot themselves in the foot with the rush to digital albums. As kids in the 60's / 70's we used to visit the record shop every Friday to pick up that weeks "3XY top 40" list, although some bands (most notably the Beatles) tinkered with the idea of music videos, they didn't take off until the mid to late 70's and didn't really hit the mainstream until Jackson's Thriller vids (coincidently the idea of creating the Thriller videos was given to him by Paul McCartney). We were quite lucky here in Oz since the ABC (Aussie BBC) were one of the pioneers in music vids, they started broadcasting all night music vids in 1978 (the show "Rage" is still running in a similar timeslot on Fri/Sat nights).
Singles were priced so that the average HS kid could buy a single once a week and still have pocket money left over. Not every album was broken into singles, eg: Pink Floyd's DSOTM had only one single "Money", but most of them were broken up because if you wanted it heard on radio you had to have a single for the radio station to promote. DSOTM still is one of the all time biggest selling albums, it's very likely it would not have sold more than a handful of copies without begrudgingly cutting the "Money" single for the radio audience to hear and subsequently vote onto the all important "hit list" with their wallets.
Most of that is probably due to the PO, when in el-Nina conditions the eastern pacific is cool and wet and the west warm and dry, in el-Nino years the opposite is true. We are set for our hottest year ever here in Australia, thing is, it is not an el-Nino year.. The next el-Nino will be disastrous for us here in Australia, the recent Sydney fires are what we normally get in an el-Nino summer, a fire like that in mid-spring is unheard of, it's at least 2 months too early. Spring is normally the season to deliberately burn undergrowth to reduce fuel for the summer instead the spring weather is such that total fire bans have been declared throughout NSW.
Model diverge from reality over time, well who woulda thunk dat?
Climate is defined as the statistics of weather, climate is not mathematically chaotic, weather (turbulence) itself is mathematically chaotic. This has been pointed out to you several times in the past, please try and pay attention since that fact is absolutely fundamental to understanding what you are talking about.
And no, despite what the opinion pages of the Washington post says, the IPCC are even more pessimistic about the outlook than they were in 2007 and much more certain that the warming trend seen over the last century is entirely due to man. The IPCC revised the lower bound of climate sensitivity down by 0.01degC, the "most likely value" has not changed.
What's next? - Are you going to claim it was a "leaked report" too?
And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism.
You have willing put your mind in a political cage and it has blind sided you to common-sense and introspection.
Yes, there's a reason Gore called his slide show of the IPCC reports "An inconvenient truth", it's very inconvenient for people to abandon a coal mine.
The coal industry funds the bulk of the anti-science propaganda. Washington is the center of the universe for professional climate deniers, all 50 loosely associated (for hire) anti-AGW lobby groups such as the "Heartland Institute", have their headquarters within a mile of K street. They are very good at what they do and I've have had many long debates over the last decade with intelligent slashdotters who have been "taught the controversy". The fake skeptics have convinced them it's all just political bullshit, you can't argue with someone who when shown to be factually incorrect simply changes the subject to another factually incorrect statement. There not assessing the facts, they are assessing the politics of the person offering them.
They do this in order to rationalise their firm belief that "climate science" is a figment of imagination in the heads of politicians they personally don't like (such as Gore). It's very easy way for these educated fools to un-fool themselves, if a climate science article arguing either side is full of ad-homs, then ignore it. In other words stop reading the politics of climate, read the science, figure out the best course of action in your own mind, then you are ready to talk the politics of a solution.
Without fertilizer a field needs to be left fallow about one in every 3-4 years, normally you would put livestock on it when fallow. Without fertilizer the global harvest would drop about 20%, this is why it's widespread use was called a "revolution in agriculture". Of course like coal burning itself we have traded sustainability for efficiency, and we have too many people now to turn back.
A court order is a slap on the wrist, get caught breaking it and they will hammer you. Judges do not like to be disobeyed, it undermines their authority.
Slashdot Mirror
An American complaining about the high price of petrol, it would be funny if it wasn't so mind numbingly ignorant.
Indeed, all trade is ultimately built on trust .
Sorry, I don't follow the subject that closely. As far as I know it's still only Jay Leno who can afford a decent fuel cell car but the economics is (reportedly) much better for BMW / Mercedes(?) Buses & trucks. People who buy private electric cars now are not generally motivated by the cash price. For example Jay Leno also has a 1907 electric car. ;)
The sensations of hearing, sight, touch, and to some extent smell are all different ways for the brain to model 3D space. Different ways for the universe to observe itself.
H2 is made in commercial quantities from "cracking" fossil fuels. Splitting water with electricity is more expensive but if your source of energy is clean then there's no GHG problem with the technology on a large scale. Reducing GHG emissions is the main reason for all the interest in electric cars.
*cheap - For certain definiens of "cheap"
As someone rightly pointed out above, the current problem with hydrogen is not technical, not safety, not environmental, it's economic, it's our own human system that is shooting us in the foot. Personally I think that can be fixed by capitalism provided the market (rules of trade) punish polluters rather than reward them as they do now. - The "tragedy of the commons" in a nut-shell, if we can create a set of rules (a market) that efficiently rewards corporations for screwing up our little blue spaceship's life support systems, surely we could find a set of rules that reverses that trend. If not then (collectively) we are no smarter than a jar of fermenting yeast.
BMW has a H2 tank that's certified by the EU regulators up to 20,000psi, they have had that for well over a decade now. Yes hydrogen does some weird shit, not only do steel containers become brittle, it will simply pass straight through normal steel at those pressures. BMW, Honda, et-al have a proven technology to handle those problems. Nothing is 100% safe but fuel cell technology is close enough that it has frightened Musk into making a fool of himself spouting this nonsense.
I do find it interesting how every one has ran with the Hindenburg angle, you've gotta hand it to Musk, he knows how to pervert a conversation with spurious propaganda. WTF has the Hindenburg got to do with fuel cells? - This is Musk doing a Tomas Edison, except it's uncool to electrocute elephants as "evidence" that a competing technology is dangerous these days, so he picks an unrelated human tragedy instead as "evidence".
The fact is Honda has a fuel cell car that is in many ways more practical than the cars he makes, and from a "save the planet" pov fuel cells are cleaner and simpler to scale up than batteries. Worse still for Musk Honda's car (and a cameo by it's owner, Jay Leno) was featured on the same Top Gun episode as the Tesla sports, he famously attempted to sue TG for an "unfair" review and was (rightfully) laughed out of court. Musk who is definitely smart and rich has decided the best way to compete with Honda has nothing to do with innovation, the best way to compete is to try and scare people by pulling horror stories from his arse..
I like Musk's cars, but they are not "revolutionary" they are simply the state of the art in battery powered cars, which have been around for a century now. I won't be buying any of his stuff, even if I could afford it. The man is a greedy liar who thinks the only way to "win" is to drown the competition's reputation in bullshit and silence critics with a team of lawyers, behaviour I really do not want to encourage with my wallet.
There's a reference in K&R 2nd edition to Orwell's 1984. Turns out that in Winston's world the "C" language was the language of technocrats.
Mdash is still just a theoretical particle, they haven't actually detected mdash yet.
WP is a credit to Wales and the thousands of intellectually honest contributors, it much broader, more up to date, and just as accurate as a traditional encyclopaedia. Climate change is a prime target for unscrupulous lobbyists, yet they have managed to keep climate related articles reasonably clean from that sort of thing over the past decade.
Yes, but to plat devil's advocate, if you have been accused of murder do you think the authorities might move to prevent you accessing your guns after the arrest? The GP is correct capability is unrelated to intent, however you can't do anything with intent alone, you need both to make something happen. Intent makes a huge difference, I call myself a hacker at times, I think most people who know their way around a script do, not because we break into systems but because when corporate spot fires break out I often "hack a script" to put it out.
Matter of fact when I first got into programing in the early 80's a "hacker" just meant someone who can dive into code (or a system) and make it do something it was not designed to do. It was normally a compliment, but also derogatory when applied to software design. I probably use the word a couple of times a week in normal office conversation. eg: "XYZ sounds feasible, but you realise it won't be easy since that code has already been hacked to death, maybe we should bin it and start over".
Also, if I had free will, surely I would have done more proof-reading on that post.
I have a problem with the assumptions needed for any "proof" one ay or the other.
;)
Free will is the wrong question and correct answers often come via "insight" not analytical thought, eg: the answer to a word puzzle will often just pop into your head while looking at the words, that's insight. Finding the answer by analysis (hmm, let's see, plurals end in "s"....) normally takes much longer than the insights provided by your right hemisphere, the other man deffernce between the two ways of thinking is that insight leaves with no way of explaining where the answer came from it just "popped into your head". Also to the best of our knowledge the fabric of the universe is random right down to a fraction of the diameter of a neutron, so determinism doesn't neatly match observation either, thus Eienstien's infamous "god does not play dice with the universe" quip. Turns out "god" does indeed have a gambling addiction, but if we're to believe those stories we need to remember "god" also own the house and the house always wins in the long run.
I think the closest we can come to saying anything constructive is that mind emerges from matter in a similar way that tornados emerge from storms, it a temporarily stable pattern of behaviour that eventually runs out of energy or is disrupted in some other way. If there's a ghost occupying organic machines that makes them able to respond to human behaviour then Siri is a very simple example of a "ghost" that occupies a silicon machine. Watson is far more convincing and complex example. And who's to say Hurricane Sandy HAD to take a left turn. maybe she wanted to? Beneath both man and machine smiles it's all just billions and billons of logic gates with mathematically perfect randomness thrown in for good measure. There's also the seeming paradox that "mathematically perfect randomness" has a statistically very predictable behaviour.
In conclusion, I do not believe in free will in the strict philosophical/religious sense of the word, it sounds too much like the religious concept of a "soul" for my liking. Having come to that perfectly rational conclusion after many years. I nevertheless do appear to have free will in spades in everyday life and try as I might I cannot divorce myself from it's consequences.
Jesus your full of shit today. I for one don't want to watch beheading videos, by the same token I don't want to stop people with (what I consider) extraordinarily bad taste from watching these things. And a lot more people are like me these days, "religious violence" is what we are talking about, we're more into personal responsibility these days, we don't give a flying fuck which imaginary friend ordered the fucking psychopaths to do it.
If that really is your definition of "true manliness", then do it yourself little boy, Don't sit on your fat arse and point to what others have or have not done, live your principles, or be seen to be talking out of ones own arsehole. PS: Sorry if I just "punished" your opposing view, I would have preferred to punished it with a "-1 Blow hard", but sadly that's not an option.
Laws can't work without the support of the general population (re: drug war). The question is, why is it illegal to wander across the face of the planet if it takes my fancy and make an honest attempt to pay taxes and abide by the local laws? Think about it, did the Mongols ask Marco Polo for his passport or did they proudly show him a nifty navigation device called a "compass" to help him on his journey?
Link description was supposed to read "random real climate article", my "R" key is dying, and the spell-checker cocked up "arduous".
If you intend to engage in adult conversation, kindly cease your condescension.
Sorry about that, most of the links you have ever provided me with are full of tabloid ad-homs about "greedy scientists selling their soul", so I figured snaky catches your attention. ;)
Nothing below the above sarcastic apology is intended to be insulting / snarky / sarcastic / offensive / condescending. I have used "scare quotes" in places where I lack a more descriptive phrase.
Seriously Jane, why do you go to Senator James (coal state) Inhofe's propaganda site to read their interpretation of what "peer-reviewed and/or science-oriented journals" say about climate change? Why not go directly to where the cream of the climate science community hangs out ?
I know you pride yourself on being a skeptic and we've talked about self-skepticism before, so in all seriousness here's the challenge.
Take a random climate depot article about the AR5, take a random climate science article about the AR5. Pick out a few random contradictions between the two articles that can be resolved by checking the AR5. Let me know how you go, no need to respond here if you don't have the time right now, I will remember for next time we cross paths. In the spirit of non-snarkyness. I'm willing to spend an hour or so to do a similar self-assessment on my own claims if you can offer one that you think may help me see "the error of my ways".
Personally I think that if your not concerned about climate change and the current political response then you are simply not paying attention. So use the PRIMARY source Jane, it's more ardours than the myriad he-said-she-said sources but it will free your mind as it did mine in the mid 90's. When/if that happens you will understand why I (unintentionally) haunt your posts. There is no shame in ignorance or falling for corporate propaganda, however refusing to use basic research techniques such referring to primary sources to resolve apparent contradictions, is just another way of saying "wilfully ignorant".
Seriously, I was you in my early 20's, albeit with a different subject, when you try the exercise above your going to get pretty pissed at the people who have "brainwashed" you into doing their bidding. If you want a "mastermind propagandist" to focus you anger then Inhofe is the common thread that runs through the vast majority of links you have thrown at me. When you see one of their victims in the future you will want to shake them like I shake you every now and then (often without realising it's you before I hit submit). So here's a couple of obvious questions you might ask about me...
Why do I care if you or anyone else is "brainwashed" by corporate propaganda?
Why did I spend 30 minutes typing up this reply??
Simple succinct answer from "the greatest polymath of all time" - "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire.
I'm not immune to that law of human behaviour and neither are you, I have no other motive to convince you AGW is a problem other than my 3 grandkids will have to live with our collective decisions. I may "take the piss" every now and then but if you can manage to take a step back from the verbal duelling thing we have going, you might be able to see that I am a
People complained that if you wanted music, you had to purchase a physical CD, for an ensemble collection and for an exorbitant fee. Usually you had to purchase an entire CD for a single song you liked. As soon as an option was given, people flocked to the new systems in droves, uptake was very fast.
Seems to me the "option" was withdrawn when we moved from records to CD's but then it was returned, ie: a business plan glitch in the transition from records to downloaded mp3's.. My own kids that grew up in 80's/90's paid little or no attention to top 40 lists, what was the point when you couldn't buy the single to play at home?
I think that financially speaking they shot themselves in the foot with the rush to digital albums. As kids in the 60's / 70's we used to visit the record shop every Friday to pick up that weeks "3XY top 40" list, although some bands (most notably the Beatles) tinkered with the idea of music videos, they didn't take off until the mid to late 70's and didn't really hit the mainstream until Jackson's Thriller vids (coincidently the idea of creating the Thriller videos was given to him by Paul McCartney). We were quite lucky here in Oz since the ABC (Aussie BBC) were one of the pioneers in music vids, they started broadcasting all night music vids in 1978 (the show "Rage" is still running in a similar timeslot on Fri/Sat nights).
Singles were priced so that the average HS kid could buy a single once a week and still have pocket money left over. Not every album was broken into singles, eg: Pink Floyd's DSOTM had only one single "Money", but most of them were broken up because if you wanted it heard on radio you had to have a single for the radio station to promote. DSOTM still is one of the all time biggest selling albums, it's very likely it would not have sold more than a handful of copies without begrudgingly cutting the "Money" single for the radio audience to hear and subsequently vote onto the all important "hit list" with their wallets.
That should read "PDO", Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Most of that is probably due to the PO, when in el-Nina conditions the eastern pacific is cool and wet and the west warm and dry, in el-Nino years the opposite is true. We are set for our hottest year ever here in Australia, thing is, it is not an el-Nino year.. The next el-Nino will be disastrous for us here in Australia, the recent Sydney fires are what we normally get in an el-Nino summer, a fire like that in mid-spring is unheard of, it's at least 2 months too early. Spring is normally the season to deliberately burn undergrowth to reduce fuel for the summer instead the spring weather is such that total fire bans have been declared throughout NSW.
Climate is defined as the statistics of weather, climate is not mathematically chaotic, weather (turbulence) itself is mathematically chaotic. This has been pointed out to you several times in the past, please try and pay attention since that fact is absolutely fundamental to understanding what you are talking about.
And no, despite what the opinion pages of the Washington post says, the IPCC are even more pessimistic about the outlook than they were in 2007 and much more certain that the warming trend seen over the last century is entirely due to man. The IPCC revised the lower bound of climate sensitivity down by 0.01degC, the "most likely value" has not changed.
What's next? - Are you going to claim it was a "leaked report" too?
And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism.
You have willing put your mind in a political cage and it has blind sided you to common-sense and introspection.
Yes, there's a reason Gore called his slide show of the IPCC reports "An inconvenient truth", it's very inconvenient for people to abandon a coal mine.
The coal industry funds the bulk of the anti-science propaganda. Washington is the center of the universe for professional climate deniers, all 50 loosely associated (for hire) anti-AGW lobby groups such as the "Heartland Institute", have their headquarters within a mile of K street. They are very good at what they do and I've have had many long debates over the last decade with intelligent slashdotters who have been "taught the controversy". The fake skeptics have convinced them it's all just political bullshit, you can't argue with someone who when shown to be factually incorrect simply changes the subject to another factually incorrect statement. There not assessing the facts, they are assessing the politics of the person offering them.
They do this in order to rationalise their firm belief that "climate science" is a figment of imagination in the heads of politicians they personally don't like (such as Gore). It's very easy way for these educated fools to un-fool themselves, if a climate science article arguing either side is full of ad-homs, then ignore it. In other words stop reading the politics of climate, read the science, figure out the best course of action in your own mind, then you are ready to talk the politics of a solution.
Without fertilizer a field needs to be left fallow about one in every 3-4 years, normally you would put livestock on it when fallow. Without fertilizer the global harvest would drop about 20%, this is why it's widespread use was called a "revolution in agriculture". Of course like coal burning itself we have traded sustainability for efficiency, and we have too many people now to turn back.
A court order is a slap on the wrist, get caught breaking it and they will hammer you. Judges do not like to be disobeyed, it undermines their authority.